You are here: / / HERE THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SUMMARILY MAKE A SEVERE ABUSE...
, , ,

HERE THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SUMMARILY MAKE A SEVERE ABUSE FINDING AND TERMINATE RESPONDENTS’ PARENTAL RIGHTS BASED UPON A PRIOR ABUSE HEARING; SEVERE ABUSE WAS NOT ALLEGED IN THE PRIOR HEARING; A SEVERE ABUSE FINDING MUST BE BASED ON A “CLEAR AND CONVINCING” STANDARD, NOT THE “PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE” STANDARD APPLIED IN THE PRIOR HEARING; IN ADDITION, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED AN ORDER OF DISPOSITION WITHOUT HOLDING A DISPOSITIONAL HEARING; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court’s “severe abuse” finding and the consequent termination of parental rights, determined it was error to make these rulings based upon a prior abuse hearing because “severe abuse” was not alleged in that hearing. In addition, a finding of “severe abuse” must be based on “clear and convincing evidence,” not the “preponderance of the evidence” standard applied in the prior hearing. Also, the judge should not have issued an order of disposition without holding a dispositional hearing:

… [T]he court did not have the authority, in the context of this Social Services Law § 384-b proceeding, to retroactively make a finding of severe abuse under Family Court Act § 1051 (e) based upon the evidence adduced during the prior article 10 abuse proceeding. … Family Court Act § 1051 (e) provides that in an article 10 abuse case, the court may “[i]n addition to a finding of abuse, . . . enter a finding of severe abuse or repeated abuse, . . . which shall be admissible in a proceeding to terminate parental rights pursuant to [Social Services Law § 384-b (4) (e)] . . . If the court makes such additional finding of severe abuse or repeated abuse, the court shall state the grounds for its determination, which shall be based upon clear and convincing evidence.”

Thus, while it is true that a court is permitted to make a severe abuse finding as part of the disposition in an article 10 abuse case … , that did not occur here. Indeed, in the context of the underlying article 10 proceeding, petitioner did not seek a determination that Respondents severely abused the child, and the court made no such determination. Moreover, the entirety of the court’s findings in the article 10 matter were based upon a preponderance of the evidence—not clear and convincing evidence as required by the statute … . Finally, we note that the court improperly issued an order of disposition in this case before conducting a dispositional hearing (see Family Ct Act § 631; Social Services Law § 384-b [8] [f]). We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Family Court for further proceedings on the petition.  Matter of Kevin V. (Sara L.), 2025 NY Slip Op 06422, Fourth Dept 11-21-25

 

You might also like
SOLAR AND WIND EASEMENTS, WHICH WERE RECORDED AFTER THE MORTGAGES, ARE SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE.
POLICE REPORT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED AND WAS NOT SUBMITTED IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, THEREFORE IT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS CAR-BICYCLE ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SHE WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN NOT SEEING WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN (FOURTH DEPT).
Person Injured After Being Thrown from a Motorcycle Is an “Occupant” of the Motorcycle Within the Meaning of the Insurance Law and Is Therefore Not Eligible for First-Party No-Fault Benefits
MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY REASONABLY FOUND THE DOCTOR’S NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES (FOURTH DEPT).
THE FACT THAT THE CHILD LIVED WITH THE GRANDMOTHER FOR FOUR YEARS WAS AN “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE” WHICH AFFORDED GRANDMOTHER STANDING TO SEEK CUSTODY (FOURTH DEPT).
Failure of Sentencing Court to Inform Defendant of Period of Post-Release Supervision Required Release after Sentence Served
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (FOURTH DEPT).
Elements of Civil Antitrust Action Under the General Business Law (Donnelly Act) Explained; Corporate Officers Can Be Individually Liable

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE MOTION COURT PROPERLY ISSUED A PROTECTIVE ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF’S... IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT CASE, DEFENDANT BAR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DRIVER...